Talking to my customers and friends over the last few weeks I have noticed people’s universal disapproval with the way the China Gateway plans are coming to planning before they are in ready and before allegations of impropriety between the developer and the council have been resolved.
My understanding is that any member of the planning committee Labour or Conservative can insist that the decision comes before full council, which would hopefully give the developer time to submit plans that resolved the lorry park drainage issue, which with the current proposed layout of the site doesn’t seem resolvable.
However the Conservatives appear to have a very close relationship with the developer who has funded some of their recent events and the local Labour have recently received a large donation from the developer. I should hasten to add that there is no suggestion that any of the donations wasn’t legitimate, however there may be some sense of not wanting to displease someone who has recently given you a large sum of money.
News, Local history and Thanet issues from Michael's Bookshop in Ramsgate see www.michaelsbookshop.com I publish over 200 books about the history of this area click here to look at them.
Wednesday, 20 August 2008
6 comments:
Comments, since I started writing this blog in 2007 the way the internet works has changed a lot, comments and dialogue here were once viable in an open and anonymous sense. Now if you comment here I will only allow the comment if it seems to make sense and be related to what the post is about. I link the majority of my posts to the main local Facebook groups and to my Facebook account, “Michael Child” I guess the main Ramsgate Facebook group is We Love Ramsgate. For the most part the comments and dialogue related to the posts here goes on there. As for the rest of it, well this blog handles images better than Facebook, which is why I don’t post directly to my Facebook account, although if I take a lot of photos I am so lazy that I paste them directly from my camera card to my bookshop website and put a link on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Michael - you seem to be quite wise in this area - so tell me if I am being off kilter but how can any member not claim to have an interest in this development. It seems to me that all would need to step from the room...
ReplyDeletePlanning committee voted 8 to 7on an amendment to bring this contentious application to a full council meeting as it was felt there were more questions to be answered. The Chair voted against the amendment to defer but several of his Tory colleagues voted for the amendment.
ReplyDeleteFunny bout this sponsoring / donation business the Pleasurama developers seem to be in on the act. Does sponsoring a boat race give you the right to ride rough shod over the local population? TP also seem to know what begging dishes to top-up!
ReplyDeleteMatt B, I think there is specific wording to guide the choice on interests. My understanding is that they can stay as long as their interest doesnt prejudice their decision. If they go into the Chamber after having declared publicly they will vote against it, its clear they are prejudiced and therefore they shouldnt take part. For exmaple Cllr Simon Day's interest in the Berkeley site meant he couldnt sit on the Planning Committee while the application was discussed.
ReplyDeleteCllr Ken Gregory can perhaps word it better but I think thats the way it is.
I think the vote was the right decision. I'm sympathetic to the application but it should come before Full Council, such is its importance.
I agree it should definitely go before the full council. I'm pleasantly surprised that this was the decision but it worries me that each party now has an interest in that it has been given donations (that according to current rules are legitimate donations) that might have some influence on the opinion of almost every person voting. I think it bothers me because it seems that the donations are morally questionable and do not serve the public interest.
ReplyDeleteI might go so far as to suggest that we need to redefine the rules to rule out such donations in the future if only for the fact that it does not seem right that we should hope for balance when one side is handing out large sums of money.
Matt perhaps everyone will have to declare an interest leave the chamber
ReplyDelete